and the WTO ruling drags on..

[mojo]

Now the US is saying it didn't mean to include gambling in free trade. Oops. You would have think clarification would have been filed back in 2003.

xxhttp://servihoo.com/channels/kinews/afp_details.php?id=160882&CategoryID=47

Veroneau said that the US commitment to free trade in "recreational services" was not intended to included Internet gambling, which did not exist at the time.

The commitment to opening up recreational services "doesn't explicitly include gambling nor does it necessary exclude it," Veroneau said.

"It didn't occur to us that this could include gambling until Antigua brought this case in 2003."

"Clearly that was an oversight in the drafting," he said.

"The process we are starting today would allow us to clarify our schedule and make clear that we did not intend and do not intend to have gambling included in our services agreement."

US officials said Article 21 of the GATS agreement allows a member to file clarifications to their original schedule of commitments, a procedure that has been used only once.

Mojo

[vinism]

Nice find Mojo. This is a pretty important development. The legal underpinnings of the Antigua case stem from the fact that the WTO ruled the U.S. had committed to free trade in recreational services (including gambling) as part of the GATS agreement. If the U.S. is successful in amending their services agreement, then the WTO ruling might not mean a thing.

[helpyou]

azzz,

is Gambling one "recreational services" ?

to be or not to be, this is the problem.

[mojo]

Nice find Mojo. This is a pretty important development. The legal underpinnings of the Antigua case stem from the fact that the WTO ruled the U.S. had committed to free trade in recreational services (including gambling) as part of the GATS agreement. If the U.S. is successful in amending their services agreement, then the WTO ruling might not mean a thing.

Agreed Vin. My first reaction is disbelief that they can do this after the fact of the ruling. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised they are pulling a rabbit out of the hat. We'll see with further developements.

Mojo

[mojo]

Oh boy, I am getting more confused by the day but it's a good lesson on how these things work. It is an interesting article and one I admit I am having trouble sifting through.

xxhttp://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48722480_george_w_bush_bush_decision_withdraw_u_s_ gambling_sector_wto_jurisdiction_highlights_hazard

In this case, the USTR can not merely “clarify” or “correct” U.S. service sector commitments at the WTO – it can only withdraw them. Additionally, the USTR can not withdraw U.S. commitments without first compensating countries that feel they have lost out on their access to a $15.5 billion online gambling market, making this potentially a very costly situation.

Mojo

[WinYourWayKyle]

I would not call it recreational services, or along the lines of "entertainment services"...

[kidd75219]

More on this from yahoo news.

httpxx://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070506/tc_cmp/199204094

The chairman of U.S. House Financial Services Committee, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, has introduced a bill to lift the online gambling ban. But he conceded there is not enough support currently to pass it.